Good Morning, Juho
re: "I do have some sympathy towards regional proportionality since in
many systems one could otherwise soon get a very capital area centric
set of representatives (who appear more often on TV and news etc.).
Regional proportionality may thus help guaranteeing that all parts of
the country will be represented well enough. On the other hand voters
that think mostly in ideological terms (rather than regional) may not
like being limited to regional candidates only."
That is, I think, the essence of the problem. When there are competing
views, each with a reasonable basis, there is no 'fair' or 'complete'
answer that will satisfy everyone. As you say, "... different countries
and elections have different needs", but that argues against a generally
acceptable arrangement.
re: "I also tend to think that any naturally occurring groupings among
citizens are in most cases a richness of the society and they have a
positive and trust creating influence on their members, and are
therefore usually (at least as long as they are not targeted against
other groups) worth supporting rather than something that should be
rooted out."
I quite agree. As I said in an earlier post, partisanship is a vital
part of society ... provided it is always a voice and never a power.
The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to
control government.
re: "For me proportional representation of minority opinions (5% of the
seats for 5% of the voters) at the top level decision making bodies is
at least not a negative thing. Other approaches can be used too."
In my opinion, it is unwise to seek a mathematical relationship between
ideas and legislative bodies. Ideas, by their nature, cannot be
measured or controlled. They are malleable little balloon-like things
that bounce off people, sometimes adjusting their shape a little as they
do so, and occasionally exploding on the jagged points of reality.
Rather than attempt to apportion ideas, we should strive to select
representatives who are receptive to them.
It's a bit of a digression, but I've been wondering: When describing
Active Democracy for a community the size of New Jersey, I did not
attempt to carry the process to the assignment of candidates to offices.
Our discussion leads me to wonder if, when a suitable number of
candidates has been selected, the people should make the final election
to office by ranking their preferences of those nominated by the process?
re: "... one can not rule out the possibility of people asking each
others what party/ideology they represent and then making decisions
based on this (rather than always making their decisions based on "the
qualities of the candidates" only)."
I would not want to rule out that possibility; it is such a good
indication of the shallowness of the person asking. Obviously, since
there is no such method extant, I can't prove it, but I suspect such
people will rarely last beyond the second or third level of the process.
As the levels advance, those with the wit and the will to attain
office can be expected to evince a grasp of affairs far exceeding the
facile one-liners of partisanship.
re: "I think this is a continuous (and never ending) fight. We just need
to work all the time to keep the system sound and well working. It's a
living process."
It is, indeed. I was encouraged recently to find it may not take
another 200 years to make significant progress. I had the good fortune
to be introduced to John Stuart Mill's treatise, "Of True and False
Democracy; Representation of All, and Representation of the Majority
only." It was written 147 years ago, so maybe we're further ahead than
I thought. Even then, he was inveighing against the impositions of party:
"At present, by universal admission, it is becoming more and more
difficult for any one who has only talents and character to gain
admission into the House of Commons. The only persons who can get
elected are those who possess local influence, or make their way by
lavish expenditure, or who, on the invitation of three or four tradesmen
or attorneys, are sent down by one of the two great parties from their
London clubs, as men whose votes the party can depend on under all
circumstances."
The fact that, in 147 years, the remedy he favored has either failed of
adoption or of correcting the problem, we would do well to look more
carefully at its actual cause. We should soon start to recognize that
"The danger is not in partisanship, it is in allowing partisans to
control government."
Fred
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
